Medical professionals are increasingly faced with growing demands for services by their patients with limited time to provide these services. This is especially true during after-office-hours time periods. Current alternatives to handle this issue primarily include using answering services and outsourcing to after-hours telephone call centers. Answering services typically initiate a follow-up process that is rarely documented and very time intensive for health care providers. Health care providers responding to calls forwarded by answering services rarely receive any compensation for their services (or these health care providers attempt to spread the cost to all of their patients by increased “office visit fees” regardless of whether such patients taking advantage of an office visit actually use after-hours services). After-hours telephone call centers, while more time efficient, are a costly alternative (to answering services) for health care providers. Another disadvantage of these call centers is the patient is not receiving medical consultation from their health care provider, but receiving medical consultation from a third party health care provider, which can cause inconsistent treatment plans, or cause the patient to decide to go to an emergency room or after hours urgent care facility thereby increasing the overall cost of medical services.
As an example, one set of health care providers, pediatricians, practice more medicine over the phone than any other health care provider. It is believed that at least 70 percent of contact with patients occurs outside of the health care providers normal business hours. It is also believed that 80% of after-hours care is delivered via the telephone. Although current procedural terminology (“CPT”) codes exist and are accepted by the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) which would allow insurance reimbursement to pediatricians for such after-hours care using a telephone, few pediatricians charge for these services. Lack of billing for these types of services is due to the non-existence of a practical/workable mechanism to capture call information, along with an inability to meet minimum documentation requirements (e.g., patient records, documentation of services, and prescriptions) for reimbursement by insurance companies.
The American Medical Association (“AMA”) and the AAP have recommended that health care providers be paid for services which are supplied after hours or outside of normal business hours. For example, one set of services which can be charged includes telephone calls during and after hours for physician management of a new problem, including consultation, medical management, and coordination of care which do not result in an office visit within a period of 24 hours. Another set of services includes calls for physician management about an existing problem for which a patient was seen in a face-face encounter within a period of seven (7) days. Another set of services includes calls related to care plan oversight (which can be charged per month).
There are many good reasons why these after-hours services should be charged. These include: (1) answering calls requires medical skill and expertise; (2) telephone calls in many cases are actually more cost effective compared with “face-to-face” office visits (calls are believed to increase productivity and access to health care providers, along with increasing patient satisfaction with fast access to health care providers); (3) charges for calls are associated with particular patients who take advantage of these services (and thereby prevents these costs from being spread over all patients—even those who do not use telephonic services); (4) charging for these indirect consultation (e.g., calls) services will actually improve patient documentation along with quality of care by forcing the billing health care provider to compile a more “complete” medical record of the patient (to satisfy insurance company billing requirements of the after hours patient encounter), and ultimately reduce the cost of care for patients not using the indirect consultations (e.g., telephonic care—because the non-using patients are not required to pay the costs of the indirect consultation services—as such costs will no longer need to be spread throughout the entire patient population); and (5) increases access to indirect medical consultation which lowers the amount of usage of emergency room and urgent care facilities (along with the overall cost of health care for such emergency care facilities) for those patients who would go to emergency care facilities if indirect medical consultation was not provided because health care providers could not bill for such indirect consultation.
Indirect (e.g., telephone) consultation can be considered the providing of “health care services” and a patient encounter, and liability may occur from: (a) lack of documentation for the encounter; (b) inefficient documentation of the encounter; (c) medical advice that is typically based on the patient's family member's assessment of the type and severity of the complaint; (d) medical advice limited by lack of opportunity to re-examine the patient, or ensure follow-up; (e) encounter which can involve a prescription; and (f) encounter could require a follow-up visit that must be scheduled. A good risk management strategy for health care providers should include patient notification and education regarding telephone consultations.
It is believed that the following minimum documentation will be required by insurance companies from health care providers to allow billing of telephone consultations: (a) date and time of call; (b) patient's name and date of birth; (c) reason for the call; (d) relevant patient history and medical decision (e.g., HPI, PMH, PE, Impression, and/or Plan); (e) type of service and recommended treatment plan (which can include prescription(s)); (f) total amount of time spent during telephone consultation; and/or (g) applicable CPT codes. It is also believed that insurance companies will require access/submission to charts or telephone logs. Therefore, these items should be retrievable.
Various advantages exist for addressing indirect medical (e.g., telephonic) consultation events regarding health care providers.
Capturing indirect medical (e.g., telephonic) consultation events provides more complete medical records for patients thus avoiding previous gaps in medical records for patients. Another advantage of various embodiments is to provide full documentation for telephonic consultations thereby providing reduced exposure for health care providers for liability claims where part of the medical record is missing. Because the medical record of the telephonic consultation is captured, retained, and provided to the health care provider, such can be used by the health care provider in future care for the patient, or also used if a dispute arises regarding what was actually discussed during the telephonic consultation.
Another advantage of one embodiment of the method and apparatus is the ability to document and track indirect medical consultations so that regulations limiting such indirect consultations can be more easily tracked and complied with. One embodiment of the method and apparatus provides a record which can be compiled and checked against face to face medical consultations to determine whether regulations have been complied with, even if done after the fact.
One advantage of various embodiments of the method and apparatus of the present invention is an increase in productivity of health care providers for indirect medical consultation (e.g., telephonic) by compressing consultation time (e.g., call time) between patient and health care provider, while capturing telephonic encounters, prescriptions, and/or scheduling follow-up visits. Actual consultation time is compressed because various portions of information solicitation from patients is automated (and this part of the process does not actually take up the time of health care providers).
Another advantage of various embodiments is to actually increase the availability of face-to-face access to health care providers. This is because a percentage of patients using indirect (e.g., telephonic) consultation services will actually avoid the need to schedule face-to-face visits with health care providers, who otherwise would have scheduled face-to-face visits consuming valuable face-to-face appointment slots. This reduction of patients scheduling face-to-face appointments is expected to free up space for other patients who need face-to-face appointments with health care providers. In one embodiment health care providers can set a system of prioritizing medical consultations where low acuity type consultations are handled/prioritized for indirect consultations and high acuity are handled/prioritized for face-to-face office visits. Such will increase the amount of face to face high acuity consultations available for patients.
Another advantage of various embodiments is to actually increase the ability to consult directly or indirectly with the patient's chosen health care provider. Because indirect medical consultation is believed to take less time (and be more efficient) than face-to-face consultation, the health care provider is believed to be able to handle a larger volume of total consultations when more indirect medical consultations are used.
Another advantage of various embodiments is to increase revenue of health care providers by actually billing for indirect (e.g., telephonic) consultation events. These embodiments elevate indirect (e.g., telephonic) consultations to true medical events (i.e., an event which can be billed for insurance purposes). Billing for telephonic medical consultation allows health care providers to directly bill patients taking advantage of indirect (e.g., telephonic) consultations and not spread the cost of such services to all patients, including those patients who do not take advantage of indirect consultations. This is a “pay for play” philosophy and should be beneficial in reducing escalating health care costs for patients who do not use and will not have to absorb part of the costs of indirect (e.g., telephonic) consultations.
Another advantage of various embodiments is an overall higher quality of care because patients are receiving more medical consultation from their health care provider, and not resorting to third party health care providers such as emergency room care, or after hours urgent care facilities. This is believed to provide a better consistency in medical care by reducing the overall number of health care providers participating in the patient's care along with increasing overall patient satisfaction regarding the health care provided by their health care provider.
Another advantage of various embodiments is that they are believed to increase the quality of care from health care providers by increasing the amount of medical documentation for all medical events, especially medical events involving indirect medical consultations. It will capture a complete record of the complaint, the recommended plan including required therapy and/or the prescription and/or follow up visit.
Another advantage of various embodiments is to provide a complete medical record for health care provider protection. For example, should the patient not perform the health treatment plan, complete the therapy, and/or attend a recommended follow-up visit, complete documentation will be available for the event removing the problem of faulty memories and thereby protecting the health care provider and confirming the entire medical event. A complete medical record will be available to protect the health care provider, where the health care provider is later challenged to the effect that inadequate medical care was provided.
Another advantage of various embodiments is to provide more complete records for insurance companies to perform surveys on different protocols which can increase the ability of insurance companies to analyze protocols for input to setting premiums. The method and apparatus can also allow better analysis of treatment protocols to determine the efficacy of such treatment protocols. For example, the tracking of the indirect medical consultation with treatment plans, and follow up visits can be used to statistically determine the efficacy of specific treatment plans (e.g., whether the treatment plans actually worked for patients with specific complaints).
An advantage to health care providers using this method and apparatus is an increase in patient satisfaction because patients do not have to use emergency room or face to face urgent care facility visits to receive medical consultations in many instances. In general people desire to have access to their own (i.e., previously selected and used) health care providers and various embodiments of the method and apparatus allow such access. Without the method and apparatus, patients needing urgent cart are more likely to go to an emergency room facility where the patients will not see their own health care providers, but new health care providers who the patients are not familiar with.
Patients today are unaware that indirect medical consultations (e.g., telephonic consultations) are generally not documented. In the future patients will want the ability to switch health care providers and have complete medical records to facilitate a switch. Additionally, as medical records are converted more and more to pure electronic records, the complete record will allow a higher quality remote care, if needed by the patient. For example, the patient may be away from home and need quick care and quick access to the medical record, and various embodiments of the method and apparatus will allow quick access to the complete record. Various embodiments of the method and apparatus allow medical events occurring outside of the health care provider's office (which were an earlier gap) to be fully documented. Accordingly, health care providers not having complete medical records may lose patients because they cannot offer the same level of ability to switch to new health care providers.
In this application the term “health care provider” includes an individual or organization providing medical consultation and/or treatment. It can include, but not be limited to a medical doctor, surgeon, or other individual licensed to provide medical consultation and/or treatment.
In this application the term “indirect medical consultation” includes a person seeking medical consultation which is not given in a face-to-face office visit with a health care provider.
In this application the term “patient” also includes a person seeking indirect medical consultation on behalf of another individual. In this application the person seeking indirect medical consultation can include the patient, or another individual assisting the patient in the seeking of medical care. For example, the parent of a sick child may be the person seeking indirect medical consultation. As another example, a heath care professional may be the person seeking indirect medical consultation (such as by an emergency room doctor seeking to consult with the patient's primary doctor).
In this application the term “capture” is intended to include, but not be limited to, the electronic recording of, storage of, and/or transmission of information for future review.
Conventional practice is time-consuming, requiring multiple telephone calls involving the patient, the health-care provider, pharmacy, and third-party answering services or nurse-triage call-centers. Additionally, conventional practice generally does not adequately document telephone consultations.
Lack of documentation can result in: (a) less-than-ideal medical care; and that, in turn, leading to increased practice costs due to increased liability and (b) making it difficult, if not impossible, for physicians to bill for these services.
There is a need to provide health care providers with the capability of compiling electronic medical records (EMRs), and collecting sufficient information to charge for these encounters.
Conventional Ad-Hoc Approach
Conventional practice has indirect medical consultation with health care providers being performed on an ad-hoc basis: (1) patient dialing the health care provider's telephone number; (2) message being taken by the heath care provider's answering service which can collect identifying information, telephone number, and a description of the patient's complaint; (3) answering service providing health care provider with the information about the patient's call; (4) If necessary, the health care provider telephoning patient; (5) If necessary, the health care provider issuing a prescription by telephoning or faxing patient's pharmacy; (6) The health care provider may telephone office personnel and leave instructions on contacting the patient to schedule an office visit; and (7) The health care provider may telephone a medical-transcription system and dictate a note for the patient's chart.
There are various disadvantages of the ad hoc approach.
(1) It is expensive: Every telephone call from a patient requires human intervention, at least by the health care provider's answering service. Some practices use nurse-triage centers, which substantially elevates the cost of handling these calls.
(2) It is time-consuming: The health care provider may have to make multiple telephone calls: to the call center, to the patient, to the patient's pharmacy, to his/her office to schedule an office visit or note information in the patient's medical record.
(3) It may be not be accurate: The health care provider's initial contact with the patient is through the call-center operator, who may or may not present the patient complaint and contact information accurately.
(4) There is no “record” about the contact. The contact may not be noted in the patient's chart. Likewise, medications prescribed for the patient may not be recorded, resulting an incomplete medical record for this patient.
(5) Such contacts are rarely billed by a health care provider. This is despite the fact that they are a professional service that the health care provider provides to his/her patients, and that properly documented telephone consultations are eligible for reimbursement by insurers.
While certain novel features of this invention shown and described below are pointed out in the annexed claims, the invention is not intended to be limited to the details specified, since a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art will understand that various omissions, modifications, substitutions and changes in the forms and details of the device illustrated and in its operation may be made without departing in any way from the spirit of the present invention. No feature of the invention is critical or essential unless it is expressly stated as being “critical” or “essential.”